Maggy Wassilieff

dave53

I met the inspector in charge of this case when he was in charge of the Kirsty Bentley inquiry. He struck me as a decent cop.

It wasn’t just Olivia’s hair on his boat, it was the scratch marks from long fingernails under the hatch as if someone locked down there was trying to get out, it was Watson disappearing in his boat, and repainting it when he turned up again. He’d completely cleaned it, even to wiping the insides of music cassette cases. Witnesses said heavy chains (from memory) were missing from the boat.

Now juries can get things wrong and the police can make mistakes, but in this case I don’t think Watson was framed. He exhibited a guilty mind by all the stuff he did to clean and paint his yacht.

Not everyone who claims to be innocent is, by any means. Peter Ellis was palpably innocent — no crimes were ever committed at the Civic, it was all a crazy fantasy of terrified parents and demented social workers. As for Bain, well, just look at the evidence. There was nothing circumstantial about it at all.

thedavincimode

Caine9

Ok. But Olivia’s hair was never on the boat. The initial Forensic examination found nothing. It was only after the blanket had been placed on a bench in the lab, where her hair had been examined, that the hair was subsequently found on the said blanket. Something is very dodgy about this conviction.
I always felt from the very beginning that he was a nasty piece of work, but nothing proved he did this.

rouppe

I heard that
1) They forensically examined the blanket (I think it was, or maybe a jacket?) on an examination table and found nothing.
2) They then forensically examined some hairs on the same table
3) They then re-examined the blanket on the same table AGAIN- and found hairs
4) They did not have a record of how many hairs they collected – i.e. before they did item 2 – and how many were back in the evidence bag after doing item 2

So could no conclusively say that the hairs were not transferred from 2 to 3.

Does anyone remember Police trying to convict Ewen McDonald by saying
1) We found prints from a size 9 dive boot
2) We found size 9 dive boots so Ewen is guilty
Only to have the defence say
“Count the number of lines, chump!

Police are increasingly having a habit of deciding who is guilty and trying to make the evidence prove it

Tarquin North

Fentex

There is a fourth possibility – an error in collection, testing or record keeping.

Statistics, and empirical testing, suggests up to a third of all DNA evidence presented at trial suffers from such flaws in process, the ideals of evidence offered by the theory being greatly reduced in practice.

redeye

peterwn

Graeme – solid evidence is almost as good as being caught in the act. The accused is in a dilemma here – he or she can either plead guilty and get some time knocked of the sentence (judges seem to go to below the usual 10/17 year minimum in such cases) or can plead not guilty and hope the Crown case does not stick – if it does he or she faces potentially more time in jail, both with no reduction for a guilty plea and a parole board who does not think the minimum is sufficient.

Boris Piscina

Scott Watson was stitched up by a few bent cops who had the pip with him. He wasn’t any kind of angel, he was a petty thief and a bit of a thug apparently, and he grew dope under contract for the Headhunters on a number of the islands of the Sounds, using his boat to get about between them.

But to believe he was a double murderer in the manner alleged by the crown, you have to believe:

1. He managed to grow a beard and long hair in the space of a few hours

2. He managed to drink a litre of rum, and get from the shore to his boat, and back, twice, in the space of a few hours, stopping to overpower and murder a young couple on the way. Since only one water taxi ride occurred you also have to believe he swam the other trip.

3. Every one of the dozens of people who saw that ketch just imagined it

4. That a hair which wasn’t found until the second search, after the first one turned up nothing, which didn’t get ‘found’ until the Police had taken and examined Olivia Hope’s hairbrush, placing a hair from it into a forensic exhibit bag that mysteriously had a slit cut in it, is compelling evidence

5. That someone could try to scratch their way through a hatch cover, that was locked on the same side as the person doing the scratching, not the outside, without leaving any fingernails on the boat

6. That there are not and have never been any bent or corrupt Police Officers in New Zealand. Also that the Jury system is infallible, even though most Juries are comprised of people who are only on them because they couldn’t find a decent excuse to not be there.

Of course he didn’t bloody well do it. Only a complete thick head would actually believe otherwise, though I do accept there are plenty of people who claim to believe it, because it suits their purposes to assert that the New Zealand Police are infallible and incorruptible.

Unity

I have never ever been in a shadow of doubt that Scott Watson was innocent. The hairs were either planted or the bag was contaminated – that’s a given considering the bag of mainly black short hairs was minutely examined with nothing found but then a few days later some blonde hairs were found and the examination was done on the same table as the blonde hairs the cops had taken from Olivia’s hair brush. Now either there was contamination or they were planted. Somehow the bag had gained a 2cm cut??!! In view of all the trickery that went on and the Police not wanting to know about quite a number of sightings of the ketch, makes me feel they planted the hairs because there was not a shred of evidence otherwise to convict Scott Watson.

However, we were all shown the identikit picture (scruffy man with longish brown hair) done by the fellow travellers on the water taxi and then a photo taken of Scott Watson (very short trimmed black hair) on the night was shown. Obvious to a blind man they had the wrong man. Then a drawing was shown of the ketch seen by those on the water taxi – a largish ketch with two masts, portholes and rope work. Against this we had Scott Watson’s sloop – low in the water, one mast no portholes or rope work. You don’t have to be very bright to see they had the wrong man and the wrong boat. How on earth they progressed from there to a conviction is breathtaking. Quite a number of people reported to the Police they had seen the ketch for several days after Ben and Olivia disappeared. The Police didn’t want to know.

There is something very devious at work here. Both the water taxi driver and the lady behind the bar have recanted their testimony stating they were duped by the Police. They haven’t wavered from this one iota. They were both there – we weren’t. I have never wavered in my belief in his innocence. He bore no resemblance to the scruffy man with Ben and Olivia and the ketch which the witnesses saw bore no resemblance to the sloop.

The latest North and South magazine article should be read by everyone. The scratches are explained very well too. There was no way the hatch could be locked from either outside or inside and could only be tied with string on the inside so there was absolutely no need for anyone to try and scratch their way out. No-one could be locked in anywhere on the inside because it was all open.

A huge miscarriage of justice has been carried out and I hope he is released very soon and given millions in compensation. How would any of us feel being in the same situation or having one of our children in that situation? If it can happen to him, Arthur Allan Thomas and quite a number of others, it could happen to any one of us.

Doggie

The man is guilty. His case has been retried reviewed and enquired multiple times and each time the result has been the same guilty. His behavior immediately after new years eve was simply bizarre and his and his sister refusal to explain their actions spoke volumes. As for the comment about it being normal to clean your boat of course it’s normal, what’s not normal is the extent of the cleaning who cleans the inside of cassette tapes or in today’s terms CD cases. His sister refused to talk about her help in also cleaning the boat. His sister has remained silent to this day. Putting the cleaning aside who decides soon after New Years eve to paint their boat and further why would you do this at sea. The hair evidence was presented and despite extensive cross examination the evidence stood in the minds of the jury’s. While not directly related to the case but does go towards his character Watson by all accounts has been a total arse in prison. The prick is guilty guilty guilty.

Unity

I’ve finally had a chance to read the comments. I totally agree with you Boris. Thank goodness someone can use their head instead of following along with the multitude and ignoring the real facts. My reasoning is along the same path as yours. Wrong man and wrong boat. End of story. With circumstantial evidence any of us could be made to look guilty. He had decided to paint his boat on New Year’s Day several days before Ben and Olivia went missing, so that was completely innocent. All I know is that I wouldn’t want to come in the sights of the Police for anything after this and other high profile cases.

Dexter

But to believe he was a double murderer in the manner alleged by the crown, you have to believe:

To believe he is innocent you have to believe;

That it wasn’t the guy who has been independently assessed by two separate psychologists as being extremely dangerous and likely to kill again. That it wasn’t the guy who witnesses gave evidence has previously threatened to kill women and was involved in another threatening incident that very night.

Instead Scott Watson was desperately unlucky and there was in fact his psychological doppelganger also there on the night, who also had a hatred of women and was every bit as disturbed, motivated and angry as Watson.

And then poor Scott Watson was even more desperately unlucky and also ran into a team of psychopathic cops who decided to risk their careers and freedom by setting him up and letting the real killer go free.

Struck by lightening not once but twice!

But lets all campaign to free the man whose most recent assessment stated;

“Mr Watson is assessed to present with a very high risk of violent recidivism…. should he reoffend Mr Watson may display a high level of callousness and employ significant efforts to evade detection

brett68

He’ll never get let out, his conviction is so fucking shonky and embarrassing , that certain people would let an innocent man rot inside jail just to cover their sorry arses.

I’m not a religious man, but in certain cases such as this, it would be great to know there was a red dude down below with lots of blunt tools ready to go to work on these fuckers for the rest of eternity because lets be honest, they deserve it.

SPC

I may have met him.

It was in the imperial dime establishment by the Wellington Youth Hostel, April 6 1997.

A man invited an 18 year old blonde back to his boat in the harbour, his companion informed her before she could reply that this man had been to prison twice, for supplying marijuana and using a knife in a fight.

He liked to be seen as self reliant and a bit of a tough, so did not mind – his mate was giving her a heads up though.

Boris Piscina

What about the ketch, Dexter? What’s your position on that? Or the hair and beard?

See the thing is that a psychologist’s opinion doesn’t trump photos of a short-haired, clean-shaven Scott Watson, taken just hours BEFORE a long-haired beardy man was seen in company of a young couple, going to a two-masted ketch rather than a single masted sloop.

Rowan

Not very convincing DPF

The convenient other explanation is that Ben and Olivia were dropped of at another boat with a sleaze that was NOT Scott Watson, given that there is no convincing evidence that Scott was on the water taxi with Ben and Olivia or that they were dropped of at his yacht, and quite a lot of evidence that they weren’t!!
If this case was retried Scott would walk, there is no case!

Nostalgia-NZ

I don’t know. But the parole system rewards people who say “yes I done it and I repent”. On the other hand if you say “I never did it, I am innocent” you are likely to be judged unrepentant and still a danger to society.

PJM

And then there was the Auckland couple on their yacht in Westhaven marina in Auckland, some days after the murders, who reported a two-masted yacht (ketch) occupying the berth next to theirs, with a lone, scruffy-looking man on board. The wife said to her husband words to the effect “Oh look, that ketch fits the description of the suspect yacht in the Sounds murder case”. Evidently she spoke too loudly, for within an hour the scruffy-looking man had got his ketch ready to sail and had departed, never to be seen again.
When the couple contacted the police to tell them what they had seen, the cops just weren’t interested.

burt

Tarquin North

Yes, the water taxi captain was possibly the only sober person in the water that night yet his testimony was deemed unreliable against a bunch of party goers over what type of boat it was. What’s with that ?

PJM

Yeah, and I cannot imagine that I could be so pissed that I wouldn’t know if the yacht I was right beside had two masts or one, and still stand up, never mind drive a water taxi without incurring the wrath of my passengers!

swan

“Yes, the water taxi captain was possibly the only sober person in the water that night yet his testimony was deemed unreliable against a bunch of party goers over what type of boat it was. ”

There were only three people on the water taxi with Ben, Olivia and the mystery man. None of them have described anything like Blade. Far from being contradicted, Guy Wallace’s evidence was supported by both of the other passengers on the taxi. One of them described the same distinctively port holes in blue stripe, rope work etc. The other passenger described the high in the water nature of the boat. The difference between the boat where the couple were dropped off and Blade was stark. As Guy Wallace said, the only similarity is that they both float.

PJM

And one of the passengers on the water taxi recalled standing up in it and holding on to the toe-rail of the ketch with is hands outstretched above his head, illustrating that the ketch was quite a large yacht — in contrast to the relatively small size of Blade. Anybody standing up in the water taxi and holding on to Blade’s toe rail would have had his/her hands below his/her shoulders. How fundamental is that?

Everything that has been said by parties on both sides of this case falls under the category of “well they would say that, wouldn’t they?” I don’t think one can discern either way on the basis of anything Watson says.

Similarly, psychological evaluations of Watson are irrelevant to the case – he may well be all that is said about him, and yet innocent of this crime. I’ve met plenty of people with psychological profiles like that, they have titles like “the Right Honourable”, “Minister”, and “Councilor”. Most people like that are actually high functioning members of society.

There’s no evidence that Watson did it. There’s no bodies for starters. There’s one hair on the second pass around, and a bunch of scratches on a hatch that doesn’t even lock from the outside. Oh, and Watson cleaned his boat, like normal boat owners often do. But on the other had, we have a description of a man that doesn’t match Watson, and witnesses placing the kids on a completely different boat!

I can’t believe anyone would seriously think this conviction was sound.

swan

Many of the important claims by Watson fans can be summarised by the following:

1.The trial judge jury was biased and directed the Jury thus

2 .Key DNA evidence was doctored by unnamed ESR officials .

3. Hope and the Police investigation was corrupt and went out of their way to stitch Watson.

Of course no actual factual evidence relating to these claims is actually put on the table by Watson’s disciples about these conspiracy claims ”

Those are important claims – number 2 hasn’t only been speculated – there are several alternative explanations. However the above points are only relevant to the question of why was he charged and found guilty, they are not of primary importance in concluding that he is innocent. The claims regarding innocence are not claims at all, they are just a dispassionate evaluation of eyewitness evidence.

swan

ross001

Anyway if Watson says they never came on his boat, yet DNA shows hairs from Olivia were on his boat, there seem to be only three possible explanations

Um, actually there is a 4th (and probably most likely) explanation – Olivia’s hair was transferred accidentally from her to Scott during the course of the evening, as they both attended the same party.

ross001

And since you clearly know a lot about the Watson case, can you please advise who the mystery man was? Police have never identified him but several people said they saw him at the same New Year’s Eve party that Olivia and Ben attended. Olivia and Ben left the party and hopped onto the mystery man’s yacht (according to Guy Wallace).

Unity

Very obviously wrong man and wrong boat, so everything else is immaterial. It says loads about everything that is wrong with our justice (injustice?!) system if innocent people can be convicted and the numbers are growing. We should have the inquisatorial system which is interested at getting to the truth, not the adversarial system we currently have which goes around in meaningless tricky circles and can actually convict an innocent man.

I’m wondering if people are considering how they would think if it was their son, brother, father etc. Also, if innocent people can be convicted when the evidence is so obviously wrong, then I would hate to be in the sights of the Police for any crime.

Michael

With David Bain one only has too look at the evidence to see that he is almost certainly guilty of murdering his family . There is no evidence that points to Robin Bain as being the perpetrator.
I mean who had his brother’s blood on his clothes ? David Bain.
Who had bruises on his head? David Bain.
Whose fingerprints were on the rifle? David Bain’s.
Who had scratches on his torso ? David Bain.
Whose socks had blood on them? David Bain’s.
Who didn’t need glasses to use that computer? David Bain.
Who had been wearing those glasses, one lens from which was found in his brother’s room? David Bain.
However , apart from those hairs , there is no real evidence that points to Scott Watson as being guilty.
I don’t believe those hairs were planted but maybe there could have been some mix up at the lab.
But if one believes that Scott Watson is innocent one also has to believe there was a mystery man and a mystery ketch.
What I would like to know is how did that “mystery” man get to Furneaux? None of the water taxi driver’s remember taking him to the Lodge. Did he walk in? And if so why would he when he could have come in on that “mystery ” ketch?
And if that mystery ketch came in after dark as some have suggested, how would that “mystery ” man have known where it was at four the next morning?

ross001

Michael

I agree with you about David Bain.

“But if one believes that Scott Watson is innocent one also has to believe there was a mystery man and a mystery ketch.”

There were plenty of witnesses who saw a mystery man and or a mystery ketch. Guy Wallace said he took Olivia and Ben to the mystery ketch with the mystery man. Remember that Wallace was the last person to see Olivia and Ben. Part One of Murder On The Blade, see video above, refers to these witnesses and sightings.

ross001

“Eyewitnesses Guy Wallace and Hayden Morresey had both watched Ben, Olivia and the ‘mystery man’ climb aboard the ‘mystery yacht’ in the early hours of New Year’s Day 1998, never to be seen again. Both agreed to interviews on the water – in a Naiad inflatable alongside Blade and also alongside a high-sided ketch like the one they recalled. They were the most important witnesses at the trial. Both were firm that Blade is the wrong boat – as they were firm at the trial.”

Unity

Guy Wallace would certainly know one boat from another and his testimony was corroborated by others in the water taxi. Free Scott Watson immediately I say but I know that won’t happen. ‘Some people’ just can’t admit they got it wrong either intentionally or by accident. The truth will come out eventually and the millions in compensation will be growing while they prevaricate.

Unity

Unbelievable!! In my local paper today a headline ‘Police got right man, says retired detective’. If that is the calibre of Detective we have in this country then heaven help us. His thought processes are warped. In fact does he have any thought processes – certainly not based on logic anyway. He just couldn’t see that Watson looked nothing like (quite the opposite in fact) the identikit picture provided by witnesses who were actually there, and he wasn’t interested in many reported sightings of the ketch which was the boat as the witnesses saw when Ben and Olivia were dropped off, and nothing like a sloop. Words fail me.

He said Watson was evasive when interviewed by Police. Well Watson had voluntarily presented himself to the Police as a person at Furnaux Lodge that night so wouldn’t you be wondering and starting to feel rather uncomfortable when you were being questioned over and over, when all you thought you were doing was helping them by saying you were there. If he bases guilt on discomfort, and I guess many of us would be the same in a similar situation, then there must be a lot of guilty people about who didn’t commit a crime!!?? I would say Watson was right and the Detective is trying to strengthen the conviction again because he fears what he and others have done will come back to bite them. I hope it does and the sooner the better.

Rowan

Unity
I read the same article, Inspector Rae basically has to either repeat the police “guilty” line or admit that they screwed up the case and jailed the wrong person and we both know which option he is going to choose. This case is as corrupt as the Thomas one and basically Scott’s ‘guilt’ came about because Rob Pope decided he was guilty and using the Henny Penny analogy told Goosy Lucy who told Ducky lucky etc etc, it’s a shame that so many on the inside brought his fairy story without any evidence.

swan

“swan, to suggest the police are corrupt or the trial judge is biased etcc is not obviously a dispassinate evaluation of the evidence as you agrree .

Then what precisly is ?”

The eye witness accounts. The boat, the man, the fact Scott was dropped of at his own boat, alone and couldn’t possibly have been ashore when the fateful water taxi ride occurred. In other words multiple instances of exculpatory evidence.

Rowan

I wonder if John Rae really has ‘no reasonable doubts’ that Watson did it, or whether he is just parroting the police line, I certainly don’t see any evidence which is generally required before making such statements.
Rather sad DPF that you would swallow such a statement hook line and sinker without at least looking a little deeper at the ‘evidence’

Rowan

Unity
Guy Wallace and both witnesses all confusing Scotts boat with the mystery ketch is like confusing a truck and trailer with a mini, about the only similarity he could describe between the boats was ‘they both floated’!!

Rowan

Its sad how little evidence is required to create a ‘BRD’ in the minds of some, obviously DPF buys the crowns Henny Penny case against Scott, and as for the broken record at 1.44, where to start! A good place would be its long list of lies and misrepresentation but that’s all the old fool is capable of, it is only interested in being “right” and totally incapable and not interested in the truth!

stephieboy

swan,

Then what precisely is ?”

“The eye witness accounts. The boat, the man, the fact Scott was dropped of at his own boat, alone and couldn’t possibly have been ashore when the fateful water taxi ride occurred. In other words multiple instances of exculpatory evidence.”

I take it the jury did not hear that evidence or the trial judge ruled it inadmissible ?

Nostalgia-NZ

The comparisons between the Watson case invariably seeks support from the planted evidence in the Thomas case. In fact there is another case with clearer similarities. That is Tamihere. Putting aside questions of his guilt, part of the primary evidence was that he had stolen a watch from one of the 2 deceased and given it to his son. There was also evidence given by a prisoner as to claims of Tamihere boasting of sexually assaulting the couple and the burying them in a common grave. In the event of Urban being found buried alone with his watch intact proved that the watch planted in the home of Tamihere did not belong to Urban, also that the story teller about the sexual assault was at least wrong if not frantically singing for his supper. With Watson the continuity of the failed evidence against him is supported through out the narrative. The fact that hairs on a blanket taken from Watson’s ketch were missed on an initial scan by a trained detailer only to be found immediately after sample hairs were introduced to the laboratory having just been taken from Olivia’s home make the evidence worthless, not least because the samples show the hereditary line, not the particular donor.

Unity

It’s encouraging to see that other people posting on here actually use their common sense and reasoning, unlike many who have bought into the Guilty Scott Watson line without thinking for themselves. There are only two things to consider and they are wrong man (Watson is totally opposite to the identikit picture produced by witnesses who were there) and wrong boat (akin to David and Goliath – big ketch and little sloop). As I have said before, how on earth did he get convicted? There’s something terribly wrong with our justice (injustice?!) system obviously.